Police Stop, Handcuff Every Adult at Intersection in Search for Bank Robber

reply to post by ElohimJD


Arrest: A seizure or forcible restraint; an exercise of the power to deprive a person of his or her liberty;


People being interviewed thru the link say they were cuffed.

Link

Originally posted by type0civ
reply to post by ElohimJD

 

Arrest: A seizure or forcible restraint; an exercise of the power to deprive a person of his or her liberty;


People being interviewed thru the link say they were cuffed.

Link

Yes, the ones interviewed said they were handcuffed, but some were not interviewd that were not handcuffed (as I witnessed first hand). I believe this might indicate two different responses to whether they would willingly aid in the investigation, I can undersand ATSers being upset at that action (handcuffed). And I do not pretend to indicate everything was perfectly handled. My comments were meant to real the discussion back to reality rather then wild assumptions and overblown comparrisons.

You did give me the most correct definition in the word origin of "arrest". But of course further down it states:

"The word 'arrest' when used in its ordinary and natural sense, means the apprehension of a person or the deprivation of a person's liberty. The question whether the person is under arrest or not depends not on the legality of the arrest, but on whether the person has been deprived of personal liberty of movement.

When used in the legal sense in the procedure connected with criminal offences, an arrest consists in the taking into custody of another person under authority empowered by law, to be held or detained to answer a criminal charge or to prevent the commission of a criminal or further offence. The essential elements to constitute an arrest in the above sense are that there must be an intent to arrest under the authority, accompanied by a seizure or detention of the person in the manner known to law, which is so understood by the person arrested."

So to be most correct I will re-phrase my statement to say no CO citizen was "unlawfully arrested" according to the legal sense in the proceedure connected to criminal offense.

God Bless,

reply to post by ElohimJD

No CO citizens were arrested during this process, except the guilty party. Therefore no "unlawful" arrents were made.

You posted directly after I did above you and perhaps you did not read that post that took great pains to link the legal definition of arrest, and yes those handcuffed without any reasonable suspicion or due process were not only arrested, they were unlawfully arrested, not "unlawfully" but unlawfully.

I saw no handcuffs on anyone I witnessed being searched, again I WAS THERE!

Just goes to show how little value there is to eyewitness accounts. The article linked by the O.P. has an Aurora Police officer confessing to the crime of unlawful arrest. If you cannot be bothered to read the links provided and the quoted Frank Farnia provided in this thread why should anyone take seriously your eyewitness account?

How is a bank being robbed an "unlikely notion of security"? It is a very LIKELY notion of security to the citizens of the Denver metro area.

There were plenty of lawful ways to apprehend the suspected bank robbers. There was absolutely no need to arrest everyone in sight just to catch one criminal. Investigation...real investigative police work takes much more time than gangland justice, but gangland justice is unlawful and real investigative police work is lawful. When police are acting lawfully the people have a better shot at security. When police are acting unlawfully in the pursuit of glory the people have no shot at security.

If I can help the cops catch a criminal by allowing them to rule me out as a suspect, how does that make me a sheep?

If you are unlawfully arrested you are not allowing anything.

Way are you so hot in projecting your vision of a violation upon those that were not violated? Do you hate police officers that try to catch bank robbers? What is your motive? If you care about the rights of Coloradans you would accept that they agreed to this action as a means to help their law enforcement. We have that right as well, the right to help others do there jobs more easily in order to keep the peace.

Why are you so hot in projecting your undeniably shortsighted vision of gangland justice? Do you hate the people so much you have absolutely no regard for their unalienable rights? What is your motive? If you cared about the rights of Colorado residents you would accept that there is a rule of law and that due process of law is a necessary right of the people to ensure freedom, and not defend gang member thugs for acting unlawfully.

reply to post by ElohimJD

When used in the legal sense in the procedure connected with criminal offences, an arrest consists in the taking into custody of another person under authority empowered by law, to be held or detained to answer a criminal charge or to prevent the commission of a criminal or further offence. The essential elements to constitute an arrest in the above sense are that there must be an intent to arrest under the authority, accompanied by a seizure or detention of the person in the manner known to law, which is so understood by the person arrested."

God forbid anyone of those Colorado victims unlawfully detained file a verified complaint against the arresting officer and force the city's D.A. to bring that criminal thug to justice and they have you as their defense attorney. Your defense will only undermine any valid defense that arresting officer might have. Your profound ignorance of law is not only clear, you have clearly bolded your profound ignorance of and willful disregard of law in order to project your fantasy of what you think law should be.

Just goes to show how little value there is to eyewitness accounts. The article linked by the O.P. has an Aurora Police officer confessing to the crime of unlawful arrest. If you cannot be bothered to read the links provided and the quoted Frank Farnia provided in this thread why should anyone take seriously your eyewitness account?

"Most of the adults were handcuffed" - Farnia

Not all, he said most, therefore me seeing those NOT handcuffed is totally in line with the officer quoted. Did you bother to read the article or do you just read words you want to be there?

I have no reason to lie to any of you, if you do not want someone to tell you what exactly happened then disregard my posts, but don't attack my account because you need more reading comprehension.

There were plenty of lawful ways to apprehend the suspected bank robbers. There was absolutely no need to arrest everyone in sight just to catch one criminal. Investigation...real investigative police work takes much more time than gangland justice, but gangland justice is unlawful and real investigative police work is lawful. When police are acting lawfully the people have a better shot at security. When police are acting unlawfully in the pursuit of glory the people have no shot at security.

I can understand this point, we can have a differnece of opinion as to what is more important.

I say standing on the street while a cop searches my car is far better then allowing this criminal to escape. Remeber in all this, the bank robber was caught. CO citizens are now safer then before this event.

But I do genuinely understand the point you are making here, for what its worth.

Why are you so hot in projecting your undeniably shortsighted vision of gangland justice? Do you hate the people so much you have absolutely no regard for their unalienable rights? What is your motive? If you cared about the rights of Colorado residents you would accept that there is a rule of law and that due process of law is a necessary right of the people to ensure freedom, and not defend gang member thugs for acting unlawfully.

I am not hot, nor projecting; as the tone in our exchange indicates I am far less determined to prove you wrong then you are toward me. I do not have an agenda, I was there and thought it was the right decision to make; and it worked.

I am not defending gang member thugs (man talk about bias) I am saying the men and women of the Aurora police depatment made a tough choice that resulted in the apprehention of a criminal at the expess of 25 citizens having to wait for 1.5 hours of their time, some of whom were handcuffed.

it is not perfect, and it could have been handled better, but in terms of issues, this event is minimal by comparrison.

God Bless,

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by ElohimJD

 

When used in the legal sense in the procedure connected with criminal offences, an arrest consists in the taking into custody of another person under authority empowered by law, to be held or detained to answer a criminal charge or to prevent the commission of a criminal or further offence. The essential elements to constitute an arrest in the above sense are that there must be an intent to arrest under the authority, accompanied by a seizure or detention of the person in the manner known to law, which is so understood by the person arrested."

God forbid anyone of those Colorado victims unlawfully detained file a verified complaint against the arresting officer and force the city's D.A. to bring that criminal thug to justice and they have you as their defense attorney. Your defense will only undermine any valid defense that arresting officer might have. Your profound ignorance of law is not only clear, you have clearly bolded your profound ignorance of and willful disregard of law in order to project your fantasy of what you think law should be.

edit on 5-6-2012 by Jean Paul Zodeaux because: (no reason given)

Calm down buddy.

I was responding to one who gave me the proper definition of "arrest" and said in my previous post I was using this definition (the one I put in bold).

It was not about being a lawyer it was about clarifying what I meant to say. I understand now that there is a more direct definition of the term thanks kindly to the above poster.

These people were "arrested" in the definition listed above, I agree with you. I was commenting earlier based off of a different definition used in the legal system, none were "arrested" in the legal definitive perameters listed in bold. I did not make the bold part up it is the definition, just not the one you all are using.

Your insults reveal far more about your character then my intellegence.

God Bless,

reply to post by ElohimJD

I was responding to one who gave me the proper definition of "arrest" and said in my previous post I was using this definition.

I've all ready pointed out that right before you posted I posted above you with the legal definition of arrest. You have not spoken to any legal arrest in the context of what those Aurora gang member thugs have done.

Ignorantia juris non excusat is a long held common law principle. If this offends you it say's far more about your intelligence than anything I've said.

Ignorantia juris non excusat is a long held common law principle. If this offends you it say's far more about your intelligence than anything I've said.

Why would it offend?

That is why I said I agree with you that those who were handcuffed (not all) were "arrested" in the basic definition of the word; but they were not "arrested" in the definition pertaining to the legal system of the US.

Why do you insist on insulting the intellegence of others, what good does that do anyone?

Humility is the ability to admit you were wrong and is the gensis of wisdom. I admitted I was wrong in my understanding of "arrest", I have never met a truely intellegent man who insulted others...

God Bless,

I'm not a lawyer but I did watch a rerun of CSI last night....

Anyway, while I respect Xcath's law enforcement prospective I think in this case the police got a little overzealous and probably opened themselves up to some possible lawsuits for unlawful detention.

Even a detention for ID stop requires some probable cause. If not it’s no better than stopping someone for walking while black. If a crime has been committed and the only thing the cops have is that the bank robbers drove off in a car... The police think this then gives them probable cause to stop every citizen in every car?

In this case the "reliable information" was that the perps were at the intersection in question. Using this as probable cause to round up everyone at an intersection is laughable and I think the police department in question will be settling some suits soon. Might as well say we know the armed robbers are in Aurora so let’s do a military cordon and search house to house for them...damn everyone’s rights we got criminals about!

Detention Short of Arrest: Stop-and-Frisk.—Arrests are subject to the requirements of the Fourth Amendment, but the courts have followed the common law in upholding the right of police officers to take a person into custody without a warrant if they have probable cause to believe that the person to be arrested has committed a felony or a misdemeanor in their presence.183 The probable cause is, of course, the same standard required to be met in the issuance of an arrest warrant, and must be satisfied by conditions existing prior to the policeman's stop, what is discovered thereafter not sufficing to establish retroactively reasonable cause.184 There are, however, instances when a policeman's suspicions will have been aroused by someone's conduct or manner, but probable cause for placing such a person under arrest will be lacking.185 In Terry v. Ohio,186 the Court almost unanimously approved an on-the-street investigation by a police officer which involved "patting down" the subject of the investigation for weapons.

law.justia.com...

The website above gives all the case law - can't stop anyone without probable cause. An adult in a car at a certain intersection is not probable cause.

Every detention requires probable cause - handcuffing someone is a detention, not letting someone go where they want is detention.

I don't see being an adult in a car at an intersection at which a suspect in a bank robbery (with no physical description given) was reportedly in a car (again with no description) being justifiable probable cause.

I would hope there are not 12 people in America who would sit a jury would agree with this nightmare. Then again I wouldn't be surprised nowadays. The conditioning is working.

Who knows what they'd have done to a person with a CCW permit at the scene probably shot him. I know I'd probably be dead had I been there....(certainly cuffed) as I am always armed. The probable cause being - hey he was an adult in a car at the intersection in question and he had a gun!

I also would not have consented to a search of my vehicle - as a matter of principle. I have nothing to hide but that does not make my 4th Amendment rights go away. I will never make a statement written or oral, answer questions or take a poly. Never... I am glad I go turkey hunting with our Sherriff.


I am usually on the side of the police - this is over kill IMO.

Originally posted by Golf66
I'm not a lawyer but I did watch a rerun of CSI last night....

Anyway, while I respect Xcath's law enforcement prospective I think in this case the police got a little overzealous and probably opened themselves up to some possible lawsuits for unlawful detention.

Even a detention for ID stop requires some probable cause. If not it’s no better than stopping someone for walking while black. If a crime has been committed and the only thing the cops have is that the bank robbers drove off in a car... The police think this then gives them probable cause to stop every citizen in every car?

In this case the "reliable information" was that the perps were at the intersection in question. Using this as probable cause to round up everyone at an intersection is laughable and I think the police department in question will be settling some suits soon. Might as well say we know the armed robbers are in Aurora so let’s do a military cordon and search house to house for them...damn everyone’s rights we got criminals about!

Detention Short of Arrest: Stop-and-Frisk.—Arrests are subject to the requirements of the Fourth Amendment, but the courts have followed the common law in upholding the right of police officers to take a person into custody without a warrant if they have probable cause to believe that the person to be arrested has committed a felony or a misdemeanor in their presence.183 The probable cause is, of course, the same standard required to be met in the issuance of an arrest warrant, and must be satisfied by conditions existing prior to the policeman's stop, what is discovered thereafter not sufficing to establish retroactively reasonable cause.184 There are, however, instances when a policeman's suspicions will have been aroused by someone's conduct or manner, but probable cause for placing such a person under arrest will be lacking.185 In Terry v. Ohio,186 the Court almost unanimously approved an on-the-street investigation by a police officer which involved "patting down" the subject of the investigation for weapons.

law.justia.com...

The website above gives all the case law - can't stop anyone without probable cause. An adult in a car at a certain intersection is not probable cause.

Every detention requires probable cause - handcuffing someone is a detention, not letting someone go where they want is detention.

I don't see being an adult in a car at an intersection at which a suspect in a bank robbery (with no physical description given) was reportedly in a car (again with no description) being justifiable probable cause.

I would hope there are not 12 people in America who would sit a jury would agree with this nightmare. Then again I wouldn't be surprised nowadays. The conditioning is working.

I know I'd have been cuffed there as I am always armed who knows what they'd have done to a person with a CCW permit at the scene probably shot him. The probable cause being - hey he was an adult in a car at the intersection in question and he had a gun!

I am usually on the side of the police - this is over kill IMO.

Excellent post. I am on the other side of the arguement, but you presented your feelings in such a great and productive way. If taken to the extreame it is easy to agree with your ultimate conclusion.

This was overkill.

It was not handled properly, and boy if they didn't catch the criminal... it would blow up in their faces. You are right in that the real debate is in the lack of probable cause, what constitues probable cause, and over what range/scope can probable cause be applied?

Thanks for your posting it causes me to think about it differently, far more productive then the insults being thrown around this thread from others...

God Bless,

reply to post by mysterioustranger


Wow, that's crazy and very unfortunate that they have to result to that for a bank rubbery. What are they going to do if ever there's a serial killer on the loose? Put everybody on house arrest and surch every house? People have to put a stop to this tirany!

According to the news not only did they cuff people, the Aurora police also had weapons drawn. IMO this was a serious incident. The police screwed up and they did it big time. How many children saw their parents being hand cuffed for no reason? It was a serious violation of constitutional rights.

Clearly many don't know what the Constitution or the Bill of Right are much less understand them.
So It's no surprise they don't uderstand the law itself.
If one allows, willingly to be stop,detained, an searched, you give up your rights.
To exersise ones rights, one must not physically resist, but voice your objection.
The one thing noone has stated is the children.
What we have is LEO setting a legal precedent by not only unlawfully detaining people without probable cause but separating parents and children without legal justification or a court order.
This will not be the last time this happens..

reply to post by Thunderheart


Not only was that reasonable and rational, it worked. I'd have gladly cooperated. No harm, no foul and the bad guy got caught.

I'm sure you all noticed that they all agreed to the search when asked?

Some bad person will likely sue for attention and hoping to steal a little taxpayer money.

This is a huge non-story.

Originally posted by Blaine91555
reply to post by Thunderheart

 

Not only was that reasonable and rational, it worked. I'd have gladly cooperated. No harm, no foul and the bad guy got caught.

I'm sure you all noticed that they all agreed to the search when asked?

Some bad person will likely sue for attention and hoping to steal a little taxpayer money.

This is a huge non-story.

Its a slippery slope when we're accustomed to it.

reply to post by Blaine91555

I'm sure you all noticed that they all agreed to the search when asked?

I'm sure you noticed that they were all handcuffed when they were asked.

Some bad people will defend coercion and thuggery for whatever reasons, and of course, for them, the violation of due process of law is just really a "huge non-story".

Originally posted by Blaine91555
I'm sure you all noticed that they all agreed to the search when asked?

Now it might be semantics and maybe the officer being interviewed mixed it up be he stated and quote "Most of the adults were handcuffed, then were told what was going on and were asked for permission to search the car..." -- hat tip to JPZ for catching that!

The manner, if what this officer has gone on record stating that they "handcuffed" (detained) and than asked for permission is backwards. They utilized their police powers to stop innocent persons, who were most likely no where near the scene of the original crime, from going about their daily business.

You may think it is a "non" story, but it seems others here don't see it that way.

Originally posted by ElohimJD

Excellent post. I am on the other side of the arguement, but you presented your feelings in such a great and productive way. If taken to the extreame it is easy to agree with your ultimate conclusion.

This was overkill.

Thanks, and I am a police supporter for sure - they have a hard thankless job like Soldiers and I was one for a long time.

Originally posted by ElohimJD

It was not handled properly, and boy if they didn't catch the criminal... it would blow up in their faces. You are right in that the real debate is in the lack of probable cause, what constitues probable cause, and over what range/scope can probable cause be applied?

True, and I think this will be their saving grace as it were. It will mitigate many of the issues those illegally detained might have had with the whole event. That is the problem though it's reinforcing the "end justifies the means" approach to law enforcement we are trending towards in America.

I hope at least some of the people involved bring suit - not to make money (no one really wins when we sue our government because in the end it's our money) but to make it known that our rights are not to be trampled without probable cause...

However, I think it will be swept under the rug; which makes me die a little inside...

Originally posted by ElohimJD

Thanks for your posting it causes me to think about it differently, far more productive then the insults being thrown around this thread from others...

Dude, don't take a dressing down from JPZ to be insulting, I think he's one of the smartest people on ATS - he loves his law and is about 99.999% of the time IMO spot on. Think of it as harsh learning.

Think of him as a harsh headmaster who imparts his wisdom with force... If you can listen to what he says and sever it from the harsh delivery you will learn a lot from him. I know I have.

Chin-up!

Originally posted by XLR8R

Wow, that's crazy and very unfortunate that they have to result to that for a bank rubbery. What are they going to do if ever there's a serial killer on the loose? Put everybody on house arrest and search every house? People have to put a stop to this tirany!

Agreed, this was my point - if we are going to allow an adult with no physical description at a certain intersection in a vehicle of some kind to stand as "probable cause" to stop, frisk and cuff every adult in the area we have surrendered to tyranny for sure.

Originally posted by AuntB
According to the news not only did they cuff people, the Aurora police also had weapons drawn. IMO this was a serious incident. The police screwed up and they did it big time. How many children saw their parents being hand cuffed for no reason? It was a serious violation of constitutional rights.

IMO they endangered everyone at the intersection – this had the potential to go very horribly wrong. Glad no one got hurt – other than the Constitution that is. If I were in charge there I’d have rather risked them getting further away than risk all those bystanders’ lives at the intersection had the perps decided to shoot it out with the police.

Imagine if there were dead bystanders (in handcuffs no less) in the street on the TV right now instead of the Police Chief who was basically patting his department on the back for a job well done.

This situation only turned out well for one reason – luck. None of the decisions made by the police were sound ones IMO. Unfortunately, the fact they "got the bad guys" will overshadow their poor decision making and reinforce the "end justifies the means" approach to law enforcement road we are heading down.

Originally posted by OLD HIPPY DUDE
This will not be the last time this happens..

I am afraid you are correct.

Originally posted by Blaine91555

Not only was that reasonable and rational, it worked. I'd have gladly cooperated. No harm, no foul and the bad guy got caught.

I'm sure you all noticed that they all agreed to the search when asked?

Some bad person will likely sue for attention and hoping to steal a little taxpayer money.

This is a huge non-story.

I'm certain that if I zip-cuffed you and had you at gun point you'd agree to just about everything I asked...

reply to post by Blaine91555


You have every right to surrender your rights, many of us,have the legal right to refuse and object.
Not for a lawsuit, but beause it's our right.
So sorry you think our rights are a non-issue.
We all can't sit around till it's to late to do anything.